


I Want To Be A Real Boy: Hegemonic Masculinity, Gender as Performance and Two Dumb Kids From Brooklyn

by ilgaksu



Category: Captain America (Movies), Captain America - All Media Types
Genre: Brooklyn, Brooklyn-era, Brooklyn-era Bucky Barnes, Gen, Meta, Pre-Serum Steve Rogers, Spoilers for CA:TFA, Spoilers for CA:TWS too, Steve Rogers is a sick bunny, just in case, steve rogers - Freeform
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2014-12-30
Updated: 2014-12-30
Packaged: 2018-03-04 09:18:11
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,589
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/3062360
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/ilgaksu/pseuds/ilgaksu
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>So, at sonickitty’s encouragement, I decided to type this up into a Real Proper Meta. (Look, I’m capitalising and everything.) Thanks to notallbees for beta-ing this. I’m still trying & struggling to find my meta voice, so thanks for your patience. (In the end, I gave up and posted it anyway.)</p><p>For the purposes of this, I’m focusing on pre-serum Steve Rogers and Brooklyn-era Bucky Barnes, although I’ll probably return and reevaluate this for post-serum Steve and WS!Bucky at some point. ‘Queer’ will be used throughout as a blanket term for non-heteronormative sexualities.</p>
            </blockquote>





	I Want To Be A Real Boy: Hegemonic Masculinity, Gender as Performance and Two Dumb Kids From Brooklyn

Hegemonic masculinity is a concept, coined by Connell, that takes roots from Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. Gramsci’s a Neo-Marxist who argues that the bourgeoisie oppress via coercion and consent of the proletariat. We all buy into a concept, say, the American Dream, which says that anyone can get somewhere if they just work hard enough, ignoring the systematic barriers put in place by race, class, sexuality, gender etc and so on. (This is also known as the myth of meritocracy). The few people who manage to achieve the American Dream despite these systemic barriers are then used to justify the unfair system - if they could do, why couldn’t you? Haven’t you thought of just  _trying harder_?  

Therefore, hegemonic masculinity is the idea that we have a dominant social ideal of what it is to be male in our society that we all buy into and allow to change how society functions and rewards its participants. (I am over-simplifying here a lot, so I’ll put some further reading links if anyone wants to go in more depth). So, if you align with the male ideal, you have achieved hegemonic masculinity - well done, go get a gold star and the validation of your identity as good and correct by society as a whole. To align with hegemonic masculinity though, you first have to fulfill several criteria:

 

  * aggressive heterosexuality (think Bucky Barnes’ fanon reputation as a skirt-chaser, although we’ll query this later)

  * adhering to a physical ideal (think post-serum Cap)

  * blue-collar job - something physical, manual labour

  * middle or upper class

  * able-bodied

  * white  




 

The argument then goes that your personality traits can be seen as a reaction to how well you subscribe to the ideal of hegemonic masculinity. People react either by subscription or by rejection. One example is in queer culture. Hegemonic masculinity is primarily a heteronormative concept. Thus, it’s been argued queer men who have failed in achieving hegemonic masculinity react either by:

 

  * subscription - the fact that a hyper masculine form is seen as attractive and desirable in some circles (see Tom of Finland), ‘straight-passing’ queer men, the fetishisation of strength (something the rest of society also subscribes to), etc and so on.    

  * rejection - ‘twink’ culture, deliberately adopting traits that are stereotypically designated to the female sphere.




 

Disclaimer: I am not saying ALL men react in these two ways - that’d be a very narrow conception of human behaviour, after all. This is not my argument per se, this is a sociological argument that has been made and I have found interesting in helping me to consider the characterisation of Bucky Barnes and Steve Rogers. This argument has been criticised (see further reading) and also notably does not in its original form particularly consider trans* men or anyone on the genderqueer spectrum. There may be extensions of this argument that do, but I haven’t seen them. I can see this relating to genderqueer interpretations insofar as gender performance being separated (particularly in the era) into public (deemed socially acceptable) and private (deemed socially unacceptable) dichotomies, which I imagine would be an emotional strain on the person. Again, I don’t know enough at this point to elaborate, especially since I’m not part of this social group and thus am wary of speaking for said group. (If anyone finds anything on this though, let me know and I’ll add links to it in the further reading section.)

Now, how does this all relate back to two idiot boys from Brooklyn?

Steve Rogers

Pre-serum Steve has lost this game. Outright. He is white, which should be taken into consideration, but Steve is poor, from an immigrant family and chronically ill or disabled. Steve is small, frail and weak. Depending on your characterisation or interpretation of him, he’s not necessarily straight either. He can’t hold down the blue-collar job that would give him some of this status. He can’t get girls to go on dates with him and therefore reclaim any status. He’s an artist, which is generally coded as feminine. He can’t -

I figure you’re getting the point by now. A lot of pre-serum Steve’s behaviours and posturing therefore come from his injured sense of pride and the feeling that, by his society’s standards, he is deemed lesser as a human being and less as a man. How do you react to that loss? By refusing to ‘fight like a girl’. By refusing to walk away from any fight, even if it’s physical, especially if it’s physical. By insisting on being independent, by being so stubborn your best friend learns he can go around but not through, never through. By having a chip on his shoulder. By having something to prove.

Even if he rejects it to a degree, pre-serum Steve’s constant desire to go into the Army - an institution coded as hyper-masculine - shows he has, to a degree, subscribed. How this changes post-serum is interesting to consider in your interpretations - how does his behaviour relax now he has the social validation due to his appearance?  He’s particularly unused to this validation because he has quite literally never had it before in his life - perhaps from Bucky, but not from anyone else. I’m not counting any praise from his art teacher because that potentially can be seen as part of a feminised profession.

Pre-serum Steve is 4F. He is other. He is not enough.

And a lot of how he behaves is going to be a reaction to that.

Bucky Barnes

In contrast, Bucky is 1A. He is, to all intents and purposes, only missing one of the markers: he may be poor, although the flashback in Winter Soldier suggests he comes from a more prosperous family than Steve’s (he mentions they have a car, remember? I’m making the assumption here that if this is the case, it’ll likely be a Model T Ford; which were affordable, but not  _that_  affordable, even if it was bought pre-Depression during a good time for the Barnes family or post-Depression relatively cheaply).  And Bucky puts a lot of effort into integrating with this masculine ideal - the dates, which as [this post](http://historicallyaccuratesteve.tumblr.com/post/92263067562/bucky-barnes-and-dating-in-the-40s) notes, were a social recreational activity rather than necessarily romantic. The argument in that post - namely, the fact a poor boy like him (if we follow the line of thought that it’s the Depression, everyone is struggling) can command such social power as to get Steve Rogers a date - suggests he conforms the the masculine ideal of attractiveness. He also seems a lot more comfortable with his peers then Steve is - again, he’s ‘on the level’, ‘one of them’, he’s integrated. That someone should put such effort into integrating when they have a friend who can do anything but is particularly telling of Bucky’s character. This sort of behaviour can evidence fanon that Bucky is Jewish, that Bucky is queer, that Bucky isn’t cis, that Bucky is trying to have Steve’s back as much as he can and knows the informal job sector relies on his own popularity in the local community.

 

Again, that Bucky effectively endangers his popularity by beating up people in alleys for Steve Rogers is telling of the level of his affection for Steve, when he spends so much time carefully manufacturing - even curating - his identity to align with hegemonic masculinity. The first time we meet Bucky in The First Avenger, he’s in uniform, which is deliberate choice for many reasons but it should be noted military uniform is often tailored to accentuate the masculine physique. It’s that image of him, cocky, with a girl on each arm and in uniform, that stays with us until we meet him again. It reminds me also of a quote from the Regeneration Trilogy (Pat Barker) set in World War One but with crossover here, about how homophobia increases during wartime because of the government/propaganda emphasis on ‘love of comrades’ - that it has to be ‘the right sort of love’ i.e. not about to danger heteronormative values.  If you’re going to die for your brother, he better just be your brother.  

 

So, in effect, you have two examples of hegemonic masculinity: both subscribing, one failing, one succeeding (at least on a superficial level). How this intersects with their relationship is definitely something that would be interesting to explore - in Winter Soldier, it’s Bucky who reaches out as caretaker after Steve’s mother’s funeral. In The First Avenger, it’s Bucky who literally picks Steve up. This mothering behaviour is not in line with hegemonic masculine ideals. It’s only for Steve that Bucky transgresses his otherwise meticulously constructed identity.

 

Finally, all I can think of is the line in The First Avenger when Bucky challenges Steve for trying to enlist again, when he goes:

 

“Yeah, ‘cause it’s not like you’ve got anything to prove.”

 

And how sad Bucky looks, and how crushed Steve looks when he says it. Because Bucky just called him on something that has maybe never been explicitly stated between them: that Bucky is ‘on the level’ and Steve is other.

 

That Bucky is 1A and Steve is 4F.

 

Further Reading Links:

I haven’t read all of these but will be working my way through unread ones. If you see a reason why one of these should be removed to the list - or alternately something added, please let me know. 

 

[What is Hegemonic Masculinity?](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/657988?sid=21105504898783&uid=4&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=3738032&uid=70)

[Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/189829?sid=21105504898783&uid=4&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=3738032&uid=70)

[Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/657965?sid=21105504898783&uid=4&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=3738032&uid=70)

[Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept ](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27640853?sid=21105504898783&uid=2134&uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70)

[Recovering the Feminine Other: Masculinity, Femininity and Gender Hegemony](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-007-9022-4#page-1)

[Bucky Barnes and Dating in the 40s](http://historicallyaccuratesteve.tumblr.com/post/92263067562/bucky-barnes-and-dating-in-the-40s)


End file.
